The 2013 Green Inaugural Ball will bring together diverse groups from among the energy, environment, conservation, and clean-tech communities. The attendees are among those on the front lines of addressing the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. That is why we are putting together an event that showcases our core environmental and conservation values while celebrating our past four years of accomplishment under the Obama Administration. Hosting as eco-friendly an event as possible sets the right course forward for our community for four more years of progress.

In 2009, the Green Ball was considered one of the greenest events ever produced. Held at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, everything from the food to the event lighting to waste disposal was done sustainably. Even event and travel emissions were addressed through the purchase of carbon offsets. Combined, all of these elements helped the 2009 Green Inaugural Ball become one of the greenest events around. And this time we are going to be even greener.

The first step in producing a green event is all about finding that sweet green spot.

For its accessibility, its commitment to sustainability, and the green attributes of the facility, the Newseumbecame our obvious choice. As top environment and green technology leaders from across the country come together on Sunday, January 20, to honor President Barack Obama at the 2013 Green Ball, they will do so in a facility that represents the best in energy efficiency and reuse practices.

The Newseum will serve as the perfect back drop for the 2013 Green Inaugural Ball to achieve all of our goals in creating a carbon-neutral, waste-free event. Our production team will regularly update this blog to share all the exciting greening developments for the 2013 Green Inaugural Ball. Not only do we hope this will provide guidance on ways to green events, we hope it will set precedence for future events of this caliber. We look forward to seeing you there and to keeping you updated as we strive to host the greenest Inaugural Ball yet!

Shelley Cohen is Chair of the Greening Committee for the 2013 Green Inaugural Ball. Ms. Cohen is an urban eco-mom with eighteen years of experience in environment and energy-related fields. She currently serves as a Senior Project Developer for Ameresco where she specializes in developing renewable energy and energy conservation projects, and is responsible for developing over 15MWs of renewable energy. Prior employment included jobs with EPA, the White House, and the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT). Ms. Cohen’s green home includes eco-friendly materials, 12kw of solar PV, a cool roof, rain barrel, organic garden, and has been featured in local and national media. Ms. Cohen serves on the board of the National Wildlife Federation, and in 2012 was trained as a Climate Leader through the Climate Reality Project.

Earlier this month, I gave a lecture at the Krasl Art Center (Krasl) in St. Joseph on the rehabilitation of shipping containers, primarily for housing purposes. This event was part of the Creativity and Sustainability Lecture Series provided on a monthly basis by the Krasl. Locally based Lake Michigan College is currently undertaking an initiative to determine a sustainable use for shipping container in the community, an initiative funded by a Greenforce Initiative Mini Grant.

Recycled shipping (or freight) containers bring efficiency and innovation to green building practices. Shipping containers are water tight, stackable and incredibly strong: ISO standards require the roof to be able to withstand 300

Abonmarche Blog, February 28, 2012, Jeff Saylor

pounds per square foot and each corner of a container is able to take a vertical weight of 150,000 pounds. These steel boxes are between 8.5-9.5 feet tall, 8 feet wide and between 20 and 40 feet in length. They are made of corten steel and therefore rust-proof and, in many ways, an engineering marvel.

ISO standards limit the number of shipping cycles for which these containers may be used and recycling them is exceedingly cost prohibitive – melting one down requires 8,000 kilowatt hours of energy. There are approximately 1,000,000 surplus containers worldwide at any given time and since the United States imports more material than we export, we have a surplus of shipping containers that are no longer eligible for use in shipping cycles. Shipping containers have been creatively employed through a variety of ways to assist in providing creative housing solutions across the globe. Shipping containers provide structure and a strong roof, though to make them

Abonmarche Blog, February 28, 2012, Jeff Saylor

inhabitable, they still have to be insulated; wired for electricity, heating and cooling; and have plumbing installed. In addition to being developed for residential use, shipping containers are being utilized for commercial and storage purposes as well.

Follow the link for more examples of shipping container re-use in the United States and around the world. You may also view the powerpoint presentation I gave at the Krasl. Pictured below are some examples of how shipping containers can be transformed into comfortable living spaces.

It has been on our family’s “honey-do” list for years – a home energy audit. With few dollars to spend, and limited understanding of home construction, we wanted to know what investment would give us the greatest return. We want both lower energy bills and a more comfortable home.

Then we learned that the state of Virginia is offering $250 to any Virginia homeowner who hires a Virginia home energy audit company. This program started June 20 and lasts until the funds run out. This incentive program was our “tipping point” that pushed us beyond home energy audit procrastination. We hired a company named ecobeco. Their audit costs $450, so the $250 incentive covers more than half. Many states have incentive programs. See a list of Department of Energy energy savings incentives.

Are you a Virginia homeowner? At the Virginia Home Efficiency Rebate Program, it took about 15 minutes to make an account. Our home energy audit incentive request was approved in less than a day.

How do we choose a home energy audit company?

In the past, I surfed home energy audit company websites and tried to do a side-by-side comparison of services, but it got overwhelming. I talked to companies at local green and Earth Day events, and asked them “how would you choose a company?” The most common advice was to choose a company that did not have another product, like solar panels or insulation, because they would be motivated to push you toward that product. But honestly, I chose ecobeco because that’s where I learned about the Virginia incentive in the first place – in their monthly e-newsletter.

What is in a home energy audit?

Our home energy audit lasted just under four hours. Our energy auditor was Jonathan Ferree. When I asked if I could take photos and blog about it, he responded with a great sense of humor. He was excellent at explaining what he was doing and finding with each test. After reviewing our energy bills and hearing our concerns, Jonathan did three activities:

What is a Worst Case Depressurization Test?

This test ensures your natural gas appliances are working so you would not have carbon monoxide poisoning, and that any fumes are being expelled out of your house.

This involved closing windows and doors, turning on the blower fan over the stove, and testing our natural gas appliances (water heater and furnace). He drilled small holes in the flues that come from those appliances, and stuck a device in there to test the wind speed inside, as well as look for carbon monoxide. He lit a small flame to ensure the smoke was sucked up into the flue.

Our systems passed, although Jonathan noted that we only have one carbon monoxide detector, and it’s on our second floor. He said that by the time that detector would sense carbon monoxide, it would be too late – our house would be filled with carbon monoxide because it’s heavier than most air. He recommended a carbon monoxide detector on each floor. According to the Center for Disease Controls and Prevention, about 500 Americans per year die from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Batts in the Attic

Inspecting the attic insulation

In the attic, Jonathan put on a mask to protect his lungs, and crawled in. It was more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Yikes! He carefully stepped on the wooden floor joists to keep from falling down through our ceilings. I noticed that near the edges of the roof, I could see tiny cracks of light from the outside. I thought “oh no, that’s bad!” but Jonathan explained those are “soffit vents” and they are actually good. They allow excess heat to exit from your attic.

Throughout the attic, there was yellow insulation. Some was blankets or “batts” on the walls. Some was fluffy and loose along the floors. There seemed to be plenty but Jonathan taught me how to look with an energy auditor’s eyes. We saw:

Stained insulation – In joints where the roof met a wall, the insulation was dark gray instead of yellow. Jonathan said this happens when there is air flow, and air flow means a leak.

Visible floor joists – The wood that forms the skeleton of our house, or joists, is only about four inches thick. So if I can see the floor joists, that means the insulation is four inches or less. You are supposed to have about eight inches of insulation for the best energy saving. Or if you are talking about a gap between two sections, the insulation should fill it. We had gaps that were 14 inches wide in some places, with only an 11 inch batt.

Gaps between insulation and wood – Especially with the batts, there were often gaps. Sometimes the gap was only about an inch. I can imagine if I was a building contractor, I would want to put those batts in place and get the heck out of such a hot space. But even one inch gaps allow a lot of energy waste. I think you’d have to be a perfectionist to lay insulation batts perfectly. That’s why Jonathan says that blown insulation is usually better.

Insulation should lie evenly – For the best energy saving, insulation should lay like an untouched blanket of snow. Mine looked like someone had a snowball fight. The insulation was non-existent in some places and piled up in others. Jonathan said that sometimes contractors who are laying wire will smoosh insulation around – compressing it and moving it – making it ineffective.

Insulation discolored by an air leak

Jonathan suggested hard-sided insulation or blown cellulose would likely be the best investment we could make to reduce our home energy use. It would address our worst comfort issues, that our upstairs is much hotter in summer and colder in winter. Effectively, that poorly insulated attic was cooking or freezing us in our bedrooms!

We also talked about attic fans. Attic fans are supposed to be attached to a thermostat. When the attic hits a certain temperature, the fan should automatically turn on and blow the hot air out through a vent.

Our attic fan is actually attached to a light switch, and that same switch controls a fan inside our bedroom. That’s not helpful! There is nothing automated at all. We would need to hire an electrician to separate these two fans, and make sure the thermostat part of the fan is working.

Blower Door Test

Door blower test

This was the part I had been waiting for – the “finale” of our audit. I had seen photos of blower door tests before – where the auditor puts a cloth covering on your front door, then puts a big fan in that blows air into your house. Jonathan said it was like a 55 mile an hour wind blowing on every window and door of the house. This allowed us to walk around and put our hands near any opening to feel for drafts. We also looked at everything with an infra-red device that showed temperature differences.

I was surprised to find our windows and doors were in great shape. In the winter, my family has felt drafts from the windows, so I thought the first recommendation would be to replace our windows – at great cost. But Jonathan said replacing windows rarely is the best plan to cut your energy bill. Windows conduct heat and cold, that’s a fact, and while a more energy efficient window may cut a draft – often you won’t see a difference in your energy bill. If we wanted to cut down drafts, we should replace the windows for that reason, but we should not be disappointed if our energy bills stayed the same.

We were pleased to find few gaps in insulation as we toured the house – until we got back to that leaky attic. There we found areas where the temperature was higher than 110 degrees Fahrenheit.

Making the Best Home Ever

It is likely that insulating and sealing our attic will be the next step. As I think about all the attics around the world with messy ineffective insulation, and all that leaked cooled and heated air – what a huge waste! For all the effort it takes to teach my children to turn off the lights, there is this huge unseen space that quietly wastes energy. Imagine if we all just smoothed out our insulating blankets? How lovely to fix something once and know it keeps working without any reminders!

Jonathan will now prepare an in-depth report that will estimate how many years it would take to make back that investment. Like any home improvement project, I have a greater appreciation of this structure we call a home. Spending time in the attic felt therapeutic. It was like digging into the deeper recesses to understand how things work behind the scenes – and how to make things work better every day.

Stay tuned to hear about the final recommendations and our next steps!

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/08/my-home-energy-audit/feed/6Smarter than Smart Meters: A New Approach to Building Energy Managementhttp://blog.nwf.org/2010/04/building-energy-management/
http://blog.nwf.org/2010/04/building-energy-management/#commentsWed, 14 Apr 2010 02:08:04 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=48107Imagine that you have just returned to the US after living for many years in a remote part of the world with little connection to the news of the day. As a lifelong baseball fan, you ask a friend, “How did our favorite baseball team the Houston Astros perform while I was away?” Your friend offers an unusual response: “In 2005 they scored 693 runs, and by 2007 their run production was up to 723 runs.” From the response you can conclude that their offense was more potent in 2007, but did the team actually improve?

The way most of us receive energy data at work and at home is in aggregated quantities such as kilowatt-hours and btus per month or per year. But like run totals in baseball, total energy units consumed is only a quantity, and drawing conclusions about the efficiency of a building just based on this quantity alone is as questionable as drawing conclusions solely on one team’s run production in baseball. After all, sometimes the data can deceive you. While the 2005 Astros only scored 693 runs, they went to the World Series. It was a season to remember. The 2007 Astros, despite plating 723 runs, finished in fourth place and both the manager and general manager were fired before Labor Day. It was a season to forget.

While literally millions of Americans — from die-hard fans to casual observers — understand the different measures to evaluate a baseball player and team (often in stunning detail), they have no such commensurate understanding for analyzing their utility bills. We simply have no feel for assessing the performance of conservation measures. We can sometimes answer the question “did we use more or less energy,” but not “did we use energy more or less efficiently?”

The first step, which many have taken, is to individually meter each building for each utility consumed (e.g. electricity, chilled water, steam). As the old management saying goes, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. But it’s also hard to manage what you measure inadequately. If we were to meter chilled water consumption for a campus building annually (i.e. the amount of cold water produced in a chiller at a campus utility plant and delivered in a pipe to that building over the course of a year to provide cooling), we might see totals such as 830,000 ton-hours in 2008, and 815,000 ton-hours in 2009. Other than to inform us about the total quantity of consumption (perhaps for billing purposes), the data is as potentially misleading as the annual run totals in the baseball example. We don’t know if in one year we operated the building more efficiently than the other. We don’t know how weather might have influenced consumption. We don’t know what times of the day, week, month, or year consumption might have been abnormally high or abnormally low (and we don’t know what abnormal is either). While monthly data provides clues about the seasonal variation in consumption, it is otherwise fraught with the same issues described above. Imagine, then, the challenge of justifying proposed capital investments in energy conservation projects, or evaluating the effectiveness of completed projects, when numbers on actual savings are misleading.

Breaking out consumption by hour helps to pinpoint how efficient the system is under certain conditions.

The next step is to provide near real time web-accessible meter readings that show exact consumption data at any given time during the day. Such data enables timely investigations to uncover potential problems, and greatly improves the effectiveness of troubleshooting. Consider Figure 1, which shows the actual consumption of chilled water for a two-day period in August 2009 for one of our campus buildings, Sewall Hall. The blue line shows the shape of chilled water consumption for the building over that time, which is considerably more useful than a single reading aggregating an entire day (or week, or month). We see quite clearly that the chilled water has a hard spike in the early morning, which would have remained undetected in a world of traditional meter readings. (If all campus buildings were to exhibit this start-up behavior, the Central Plant would be in disarray trying to react to it.) The consumption then settles in the range of about 120 tons of chilled water per hour across the daytime and into the evening.

We can also see that between 10 and 11PM chilled water consumption drops to almost zero, thanks to the implementation of a campus building temperature policy about one month prior to the days shown in Figure 1. Indoor temperature is allowed to drift upwards during the overnight hours, and then between 6 and 7AM the building is cooled back down just in time for the arrival of the first employees and the morning custodial team. This consumption profile makes sense for Sewall Hall, a building with classrooms, academic offices, and an art gallery, all of which are typically used only between the hours of 8AM to 10PM.

So, Figure 1 represents an example of the type of data that is displayed in today’s building energy dashboards and other smart meter applications. Recall, however, that we want to answer the question of whether we are using energy more or less efficiently, not whether we are using more or less in total. We want to get beyond run production, and start talking about wins and losses. While the data displayed in Figure 1 is certainly useful, and may even influence behavior when properly presented, one cannot make claims about verifiable energy savings based on this alone. Can someone claim that the savings from the nighttime setback should be calculated as roughly 125 tons of chilled water (if you extend the daytime consumption) across an approximately 8-hour time-span, or 1000 ton-hours of chilled water per night? Using a methodology and suite of tools developed by Rice University energy managers over the past decade and a half, you will see that the answer is no.

The energy consumption of a building from one time period to the next is influenced by a number of variables, including outdoor enthalpy (a combination of temperature and humidity), indoor enthalpy, time of day, day of the week, and day of the year. In Figure 1, the second day could have been significantly warmer or more humid than the first. Or perhaps heavy clouds rolled in from the Gulf of Mexico, reducing daytime peak temperatures. The first evening could have been exceptionally cool, or stifling and sticky. To properly account for these issues, our energy managers have created weather-normalized baseline models for chilled water, steam, and electrical consumption for many of our campus buildings. These baselines define the building’s operational personality, be it a well-behaved building or a building behaving poorly. These personalities are derived from how the building actually operates, regardless of the building’s design specifications. By then comparing these baselines against actual meter data, we can finally verify building energy savings.

The second figure shows how the baseline adjusts to account for changes in weather or usage.

Figure 2 represents the next big step in building energy management. You will see the same consumption profile from the meter (in blue) that was shown in Figure 1. Displayed in red is a weather-normalized baseline model for chilled water consumption for Sewall Hall. This tells us how much chilled water we would expect to be consumed at Sewall Hall at any given time. Observe how the model changes during the day and night, and note that on day two the red line reaches a bit higher than on day one. This reflects higher enthalpy on day two, meaning we would expect to consume more chilled water to account for this particular weather condition versus day one. The weather guessing game has been removed — we don’t need to recall if one day was humid or the next was hot but unusually dry, because the baseline adjusts to account for it.

Now look specifically at the red and blue lines of Figure 2 as they relate to one another. The model provides the context for truly understanding consumption. We see that on both days, we are indeed wasting energy as the building starts up in the morning, as the blue line of actual consumption exceeds the red line of the predictive model. Then consumption of chilled water tends to track the model closely across the late morning, afternoon, and into the evening. What we see though once consumption drops sharply after 10PM is that the model – constructed from historical data of building energy consumption for a given enthalpy – reduces as well, but only down to about 90 tons of chilled water per hour, not zero. The nighttime setback is a new wrinkle. What the model shows is how chilled water consumption historically declined overnight as the final classes would let out and the last faculty and staff would go home, leaving an otherwise almost empty building to operate as if it were a 24-hour facility. Therefore, the savings in chilled water for the night of August 17-18th is not the 1,000 tons of chilled water as estimated above, but more like 90 tons of chilled water per hour across an 8-hour time period, or about 720 ton-hours of chilled water. This is 28% less than the initial estimate, and far more precise. If we assume a cost of chilled water of $0.16 per ton-hour, then we can report to our administrators with confidence that the savings in chilled water due to the nighttime setbacks in Sewall Hall for the night of August 17-18th, 2009 was about $115.20. That’s a win. And, by plotting the meter data against the model, we know that we are wasting energy due to the hard starts in the morning, and we can quantify exactly how much. Thanks to our new model, each morning at Rice doesn’t begin with a consumption profile that looks like a stalagmite.

The ability to plot meter data against a predictive baseline is a game-changer. At Rice, every two weeks we hold an interdepartmental committee meeting to review the performance of a number of our campus buildings using this tool. Participants represent maintenance, the central plant, housing and dining, project management and engineering, utility management, custodial, and sustainability. In addition, several members of this committee use these tools daily to assess performance, quantify savings, and identify problem areas. We can now accurately answer the question “did we use energy more or less efficiently?” – not just “did we use more or less?” – an answer that positions us to implement, understand, and verify the effect of energy conservation measures, to report real savings, and to quantify the resulting greenhouse gas emissions reductions from those conservation measures, all without wondering how weather may have affected the data.

The approach to energy management developed at Rice is now embedded in a campus energy management system that connects many disparate data sources, including several building controls systems, various district cooling plant systems, and the internet. We are creating dashboards for building lobbies, with weather-normalized energy and carbon reporting at the building-level. However, this approach needs to spread far beyond just campus environments. (So far, Rice, Dartmouth, the University of Iowa and the city of Houston are the only organizations I know that use this system.) A simple display of actual vs. expected energy consumption, in a manner easily understood by everyone from facility managers to employees to homeowners to tenants, is the next “killer app” of building energy technology. By putting the consumption data in context, what was once an abstract and confusing quantity for the average person is given meaning, much as comparing runs scored for one baseball team versus runs scored by their opponents gives the quantity meaning. Now we know how to tell whether and when we are truly using energy in buildings more efficiently or not. For energy management, the game has changed.

Richard Johnson is the Director of Sustainability for Rice University. He also serves as the Associate Director of the Center for the Study of Environment and Society (CSES). Richard holds an appointment as a Professor in the Practice of Environmental Studies in Sociology and has taught several classes at Rice. Richard is also a research fellow for the Center on Race, Religion, and Urban Life (CORRUL). Richard received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Rice University, and a Masters in Urban and Environmental Planning from the University of Virginia.

The author wishes to acknowledge the work of Mark Gardner and Eric Valentine, who have demonstrated that facilities departments can be a source of innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as John Windham, whose prowess in squeezing energy savings from campus buildings is now closely and accurately measured using Mark and Eric’s software.

Students at Eastern Wyoming College install radiant floor heating in an Energy Star home as part of their coursework. (John Ely)

In a state that consistently finishes last in state rankings for energy efficiency, Eastern Wyoming College (EWC) is training rising carpenters and construction workers to be leaders in their field.

In 2006, John Ely started the Green Construction Technology certificate program at Eastern Wyoming College in rural Torrington, WY. With a long-standing interest in green building and experience building a number of Energy Star certified, net-zero energy homes, John had a desire to teach others the skills to build healthy and energy-efficient homes. Before starting the program at EWC, John taught a similar green construction technology program at Laramie County Community College with fellow instructor and carpenter Tim Nyquist. Through the course of the program, students built 2 net-zero energy houses. The program has since been discontinued due to budget issues.

The Green Construction Technology program at EWC is an 11-month certificate program which incorporates class time with hands-on learning; about 10% class time and 90% on the job. Students spend Monday mornings in the classroom where they learn about green construction methods and read up on current literature in the field, though Ely explains that “really, the only way to learn construction is to do it,” so the rest of the school week the students work together to build a house to Energy Star requirements off campus. Ely claims that this program is the only Energy Star certified building program within the community college system, giving the students a unique opportunity to engage in installing and understanding energy-efficient building techniques.

In the process of building the class house, students learn a great number of green building techniques, including how to install solar photovoltaics, solar hot water heating, in-floor radiant heating, and how to control indoor air quality through the use of low VOC paints and non-invasive glues with water or latex bases. Since the program began in 2006, students have worked together to build 2 houses and are currently working on a third house. Once completed, the houses are sold and the money goes back to the college. The first two houses are both rated Energy 5 Star plus.

Garrett Travis, a student currently enrolled in the program, explains that he was drawn to the program because of its focus on green building and the value of a hands-on program. After completing the course, Garrett plans to move back to his hometown of Wray, CO, and continue working for a contractor that he worked for previously. He looks forward to incorporating the skills he’s learned through the Construction Technology program at EWC and adds that he believes “the skills and processes I have learned will become a new building standard.”

Garret represents a growing trend across the country of heightened interest in green building and energy efficiency. This year the program has seen its highest enrollment and Ely noted that even high school students are asking to shadow him and are planning to enroll in the program after completing high school. He explains that much of this interest is due to the fact that when his students graduate and go to work with a contractor, they have the ability to move up quickly by being an asset to “contractors who are looking to change to green but don’t know how.”

Unfortunately, despite the growing interest from students and trades people, programs like the one at EWC aren’t common in the rural west and schools are having a hard time weighing the cost of the program against what the school gets in return. Ely cites a lack of leadership and vision from administrations. Before coming to EWC, he had approached nearby Western Nebraska Community College to set up a similar program, but he changed targets when WNCC said it would take several years to get the program up and running.

Cost is also an issue: a new, outfitted work trailer of the type used by a general contractor costs EWC $100,000, and each student is issued a complete set of basic carpenters’ hand tools and rolling chest that is valued at about $900. (Students who complete the course are allowed to keep the tools, making them work-ready upon graduation.) After that initial investment, it costs roughly about as much per class as to build an Energy Star rated residence.

Due to budget issues, the EWC administration has put the Green Construction Technology program on a hiatus after its current semester. In its place, Ely will create a weatherization program which will begin in the fall of 2010. The weatherization program will teach students how to perform an in-depth assessment of an existing home and recommend how to make the home energy-efficient and healthy. The curriculum is still being developed and two grants have been written and approved to help with start-up costs to offset student expenses and training for instructors.

Though disappointed, Ely recognizes the importance of teaching weatherization of existing homes. “It’s a very important direction for EWC and community colleges to go, especially when we consider there are over 127,000,000 unsustainable houses in our housing stock. Many are an ecological disaster.” He hopes that training students on existing buildings will further the same goals that the green building program did: making homes safe, comfortable, and energy-efficient in the long term.

Students Kim, Shana and Emily set papercrete blocks as part of a workshop at Coconino Community College. (Joe Costion)

Students of the University of Arizona (UA) are putting newspaper to work in outhouses–and it’s not, ahem, for wiping up. They’re using newsprint–along with some water and a small quantity of sand, lime, clay, fly ash, or Portland cement–in a concoction called papercrete to construct outhouses, as well as things like concrete benches and residential dwellings. Papercrete, known by alternative names such as fibrous concrete, padobe, and fidobe, is a low-carbon construction material, and though it’s not yet extensively used on university and college campuses, students are exploring its uses for a variety of purposes.

Diane Austin, associate professor and associate research anthropologist in the UA’s Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, has been pushing her students to use greener building materials. Working with her students and a network of local partners in border communities of southern Arizona and northern Sonora, she has been testing the feasibility of papercrete for a variety of applications. “Our project is designed to find an alternative form of construction for low income households that are building their own homes,” she explains. “It must be cost-effective, rely on locally available materials and local skills, be insect and fire resistant, and be durable.”

We already know that traditional concrete is energy-intensive, accounting for 2.4 percent of total global industrial- and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, and papercrete goes a long way to solving this problem. “There are many formulations. The simplest is water, paper, and Portland cement whipped up in a food processor. Try it yourself, it’s easy.” explains Vincent Pawlowski, a Prescott College alumnus and former student of Austin’s. A typical papercrete formula uses four to five percent Portland cement as a binding agent that helps set the shape of the papercrete.

However, according to Pawlowski, “Most people will find alternatives, like lime and clay or podzalan volcanic ash materials instead of Portland cement. Others are using coal fly ash, or natural alternatives like pumus or semi-natural alternatives like pearlite (another kind of volcanic ash that’s heated like popcorn and pops to become very light and a great insulator).”

“Papercrete has great potential as a low-carbon building material,” says Pawlowski. “Even when adding Portland cement to the mix the carbon footprint isn’t as bad as some people think it would be because the CO2 that is produced when creating Portland cement (when it’s baked) goes back into it when you add water.”

Yet the climate benefits of papercrete go well beyond eschewing Portland cement.. Papercrete, which has been used for decades in a variety of building applications, has many climate benefits. The sequestration of carbon is perhaps the most significant since papercrete is composed of 50-80 percent waste paper (low-grade newsprint as well as higher-end magazines, cardboard, and junk mail). Papercrete is also a good insulator, which helps reduce the energy needed to heat or cool a building.

In ActionWorking with local experts and novices, UA students use their newfound knowledge of papercrete in collaborations with low-income communities seeking ways to build sturdy structures at minimum cost and with little environmental damage and lower operating costs. Some student groups have gone into local science classrooms to teach K-12 students about the material, and there are also two houses constructed of papercrete in Nogales, Sonora, several benches constructed by students for their schoolyard habitats in Nogales, Arizona, and two CalEarth domes at Avalon Farms in Tumacacori that are covered with papercrete.

The carbon footprint of a building is also impacted by its lifespan. “The longer the lifespan, the lower the carbon footprint,” explains Shane Keller, who has previously instructed students at the Campus Center for Appropriate Technology through Humboldt State University on the use of papercrete. “This bodes well for papercrete since its lifespan is very long (just how long remains to be determined by time). It doesn’t rot, insects do not consume it and it doesn’t catch flame. Buildings made of it should last for many hundreds of years. As with any building, the structural design, roof system and maintenance over time will play a significant role in its lifespan.”

The mixing process used to make papercrete is purportedly less energy-intensive than traditional concrete as well. And since in many cases locally-sourced sand, clay, and lime can be used, transportation fuel for moving materials is also minimized, further shrinking its carbon footprint.

These are issues being explored by Coconino Community College in Flagstaff, AZ, as part of associate degrees in alternative energy and sustainable green building. The one-credit papercrete workshop taught during the innovative and alternative building techniques course gives students hands-on experience working with the material as well as theoretical knowledge about how it can be applied.

As Joe Costion, Coconino Construction Technology Management department chair puts it, “Papercrete teaches students to look at the possibility of building with materials from the waste streams of society to create a viable structure.” As students begin to understand that there is no more “away” for waste, they come to appreciate refuse as a resource. “Waste paper is a tremendously underutilized resource, the aim of teaching papercrete then is to change our perspective about the daily materials we use and discard.”

Papercrete can be used to construct homes and office buildings and though it can’t be utilized in wet climates (it takes too long to dry and doesn’t hold up well in the presence of constant moisture), papercrete structures are low maintenance and last for many, many years. According to Pawlowski, “The folks at Mason GreenStar think that it could be used in North America, at least in the Southwest where insulation is critical and the dampness isn’t a problem.”

To date, only about 100 North American homes are using this material and other than the odd outhouse, it has yet to be used on college campuses. It is still very much a material for amateurs. But that isn’t slowing down students’ interest in the material. “Papercrete has repeatedly brought out the creative energy of students,” says Costion. “Better yet, the tinkerers and shade-tree mechanics are absolutely intrigued by this material. It’s cheap and lightweight, so it inspires and provokes people as owners and builders.”

As the director of facilities at Radford University can tell you, the most powerful and elegant form of solar power is simple passive solar. This is true both in the case of trapping the sun’s heat and for its inverse, deflecting it. Dark-colored roofs act as solar collectors, which in most circumstances has the net effect of wasting energy. The heat trapped by dark roofs causes increased cooling energy use, higher peak electricity demand, and increased air pollution due to the heat island effect.

Although it is true that a dark roof soaks up heat in winter as well as summer (and therefore can save a bit on heating), a white roof is a net energy saver even in the northernmost parts of the United States. There are several reasons for this: During winter the sun is lower to the horizon and does not hit roofs for as many hours of the day or as directly and intensely as it does in the summer; therefore, the overall solar collection is far less. White roofs also retain snow cover, an excellent insulating material, better than dark ones.

Most importantly, because heat rises, the heat gain on a dark roof in winter stays at the top of a building (rather than heating the structure) before disseminating into the surrounding atmosphere. It is precisely this cycle of heat capture and loss that creates “heat islands” in metropolitan areas, a major contributor to global warming.

Photo courtesy of Mount Wachusett College

White reflective membranes or coated roofs last longer (because the intensity of the heat breaks down dark roofing materials faster), create cost savings, and lower a building’s carbon footprint. The degree of efficiency achieved simply by using this technique is astounding. A white roof typically only increases 10-25 degrees F above the air temperature, even on the sunniest of days. To illustrate the comparison between white roofs and dark roofs: On a clear, sunny summer day when the air temperature is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, a typical white roof might reach approximately 110 degrees. An aluminum roof would be hotter, at 140 degrees, while a standard black, single ply roof will heat up to 190 degrees or more.

According to physicist Hashem Akbari of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a 1,000-square-foot “cool” roof offsets ten metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. If a hundred major urban areas in temperate and tropical regions switched to reflective materials for their roofs and pavements, it would offset roughly 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases-equal to ten years of emissions growth. Akbari and his colleagues are proposing an international campaign to the UN to organize all the large cities in these regions to develop white roof installation programs.

“I call it win-win-win,” Akbari said. “First, a cooler environment not only saves energy but improves comfort. Second, cooling a city by a few degrees dramatically reduces smog. And the third win is offsetting global warming.”

There are many ways to get a roof white. A simple coat of white paint creates remarkable efficiency. For an even greater degree of reflectivity, white roofs can be made from inherently cool roofing materials, such as white vinyl or roof coating. Two new roof coatings on the market made by HyperSeal, Inc, contain glass microspheres that increase both insulating and reflective properties.

Harvard Divinity School, Depauw University, Valparaiso University, Mount Wachusett College, Thomas More College, University of Florida, and University of California, Santa Barbara are among the many educational institutions that have started to integrate white roof technology into their campus structures. Many of them have already won environmental awards for their buildings.

The athletic arena at Radford University, however, takes the cake. Sporting the first roof of its kind, the top of the Dedmon Center features a fabric membrane with nanotechnology insulation. At only two inches thick, the composite fabric system has an insulation value of R-12. It also allows a moderate amount of natural light to pass through the membrane, reducing the need for artificial lighting during the day. This fusion of aesthetics, conservation, and technology is an elegant response to the increasing awareness of energy waste.

Photo courtesy of Mount Wachusett College.

See More:

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/in-every-season-white-is-the-new-green/feed/0University of Florida Strives to Surpass LEEDhttp://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/university-of-florida-strives-to-surpass-leed/
http://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/university-of-florida-strives-to-surpass-leed/#commentsTue, 14 Oct 2008 17:44:30 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/campusecology/?p=2390For universities serious about reducing their carbon footprint, compact fluorescent light bulbs just won’t cut it. Many are starting, quite literally, from the ground up, building highly efficient dorms, classrooms and libraries that can not only cut their carbon emissions but also boost their campus image.

About 260 university buildings across the nation have received a thumbs-up from the U.S. Green Building Council in Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, the national benchmark for green building. Another 1,600 campus buildings have registered for certification.

“Campuses are always on the cutting edge of greener construction,” said Melissa Gallagher-Rogers, higher education sector manager at the USGBC. “The universities see themselves as innovators.”

Much of the credit is due to enthusiastic students, she said, who expect greener buildings on their campus. In the case of Oberlin College, Gallagher-Rogers said, some students have chosen their school because of its commitment to green.

Gallagher-Rogers said the USGBC saw a significant surge in greener building on campuses in 2007 when energy prices reached all-time highs. But with green campuses so commonplace these days, some universities are going above and beyond LEED certification to prove their prowess.

Down south, the University of Florida is evidence that campuses can have both quality and quantity when it comes to green building.

The 17.4 million square foot Gainesville campus is cutting back on their $2.5 million monthly energy bill by constructing highly efficient buildings. In 2001 the university adopted LEED criteria for all major new construction and renovation projects in the future. In 2006, they upped the ante and required LEED Silver certification for all new construction. So far the campus has ten LEED certified buildings with another 55 registered – the most of any college in the nation.

“We are really big and we know we had a big footprint and we wanted to do whatever we can to minimize that footprint,” said Bahar Armaghani, assistant director of Facilities, Planning and Construction at UFL. “As an educational institution we feel it is our duty to walk the talk.”

Under Armaghani’s leadership, UFL constructed Rinker Hall in 2003, the state’s first LEED Gold-certified building. And the green movement has snowballed ever since.

The university’s biggest savings come from water reclamation. Boasting its own wastewater treatment and irrigation systems, the campus collects more than 2.5 million gallons of reclaimed water a day and uses it to irrigate native landscaping, an aspect that only boosts the Gators’ LEED report card.

All ten of the university’s LEED-certified buildings used 87 percent or more recycled materials in construction-such as concrete, metal and wood – earning the university additional credits. To reduce the heat island effect, buildings have been outfitted with light-colored roofs, and in the case of the Charles R. Perry Construction Yard, a 2,600 square foot green roof. By purchasing green power credits for every project, the university offsets 70 percent of its carbon footprint.

Standards have been set for future construction as well, guaranteeing the use of waterless urinals and dual flush toilets, occupancy sensors and glazed windows. All of these innovations add up to about a 30 percent savings in energy costs for the campus.

A university benefits from greener building in a variety of other ways. One, Gallagher-Rogers said, is marketability: “It’s not only saying you’re green but proving it.”

“We have been lucky to not have to convince the administration to build green,” Armaghani said. “They are all on board with this.”

Despite the fact that UF is already leading the way in green building, Armaghani insisted they are not near to being done. She’s right. Although UF boasts the most LEED certified and registered buildings – 65 in total – the campus is home to a staggering 1,932 structures.

“We still have a lot to do; I think we should be doing even more.”

For one, Bahar wants at least Gold certification for all new construction. She would also like to see LEED certification for smaller projects. (Currently the university only applies LEED criteria to projects exceeding $1 million.)

But she’s not stopping there.

“We need to beef up the envelope,” Armaghani said, referring to the skin or exterior of a building. The tighter the envelope, the less energy wasted. She also wants to see more use of energy recovery systems such as reusing chilled water to power HVAC systems.

And instead of purchasing green power credits, Armaghani would like the campus to be self-sufficient by installing photovoltaic cells on buildings.

Currently, three of the campus’ LEED certified buildings are outfitted with touch-screen dashboards in their lobbies, allowing visitors to view the buildings’ energy output. Armaghani said her team is working to place these dashboards in every building and connecting them to the web for 24/7 monitoring.

“We haven’t been focusing on the carbon and I think we’re probably going to do that more in future,” she said.

With President Bernard Machen’s signature on the American College and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment and a promise to become carbon neutral by 2030, the university has a lot of work ahead of them. But for Armaghani, it’s all in a day’s work.

“This is all becoming part of our regular practice,” she said.

See More:

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/university-of-florida-strives-to-surpass-leed/feed/0Student Fees Drive Campus Retrofitshttp://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/student-fees-drive-campus-retrofits/
http://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/student-fees-drive-campus-retrofits/#commentsTue, 14 Oct 2008 17:10:18 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/campusecology/?p=2386It often takes more than a dedicated student club or well-intentioned administrator to transform campus operations, particularly when it comes to sustainability and energy efficiency. Rather, campus-wide commitment can be the best indicator of success, as at University of Tennessee. Here, student investments, combined with Facilities department involvement and Chancellor support, led to significant retrofits and the beginnings of institutional change.

In 2004, UT students voted for a student fee of $5, essentially an extra tax on themselves, which has been used for campus greening projects. The fee brings in about $425,000 a year, according to Terry Ledford, Senior Project Manager at the university.

Most recently the fee has resulted in significant lighting retrofits to the Stokely Management Center, a 1970s building with retrograde lighting that couldn’t be monitored or controlled easily. According to the university, lights could only be turned off half a floor at a time, meaning that a single late-working professor had to use dozens more lights than necessary to work.

However, with $500,000 of the student fees collected over the past four years, the university installed a new, smarter lighting system which uses motion detectors and light sensors to manage lights according to the natural daylight available and whether a room is occupied or not. While the project was originally slated at $625,000, the Facilities department volunteered labor to bring it in ahead of schedule and under budget.

While this energy-saving move was driven by student involvement, the campus also has support from leading administrators. Loren W. Crabtree, UT’s Chancellor, signed the President’s Climate Commitment in 2007, opening the door for all kinds of changes, such as a greenhouse gas inventory, required by the ACUPCC, which will set a baseline for the campus as it looks to make reductions.

Leith Sharp, former Director of the Harvard Green Campus Initiative, in a recent interview with Grist cited the importance of getting participation from all levels of campus constituents. “Sharp says [middle managers] are the real key to change, since they control most behind-the-scenes systems and processes. But more often than not, they need to know that there’s a desire and capacity from below (students and staff) and a mandate from above (administration) before they will consider acting. So Sharp recommends the “sandwich” method: building grassroots support, then using evidence of that support to get top leaders on board, then taking that buy-in to the middle.”

UT is one of the many schools where support from various sectors of the campus makes the commitment to climate action easier, and so far the changes that have taken place are only first steps. Proceeds from the same student fee that upgraded the lighting in the Stokely building are now being directed towards purchasing green power (at 2.5% per year), an electric vehicle fleet, recycling, and other initiatives.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2008/10/student-fees-drive-campus-retrofits/feed/0Captured Heat Makes Rowan University Richer and Greenerhttp://blog.nwf.org/2008/09/captured-heat-makes-rowan-university-richer-and-greener/
http://blog.nwf.org/2008/09/captured-heat-makes-rowan-university-richer-and-greener/#commentsTue, 16 Sep 2008 20:51:28 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/campusecology/?p=2367Rowan University, located in Glassboro, New Jersey, is a school with a mission: to unite its staff and students in the campus-wide goal of achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible. Though it has implemented many innovative green measures in recent years, perhaps the most significant is the construction of a CHP (combined heat and power) cogeneration plant, completed in early 2008.

Cogeneration is the use of a single plant or station to generate electricity and heat simultaneously. The nature of producing electricity alone means that some thermal energy is generated as a byproduct, but where most plants simply release that heat, a cogeneration plant captures this thermal “waste” and uses it as manufactured heating.

Sean Casten, President of Recycled Energy Development, testified in 2007 before the Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Senate that most thermal power plants the majority of which run on fossil fuels or natural gas—waste a significant percentage of available energy, up to 60 percent or more, as excess heat. By using this energy instead of discarding it, CHP is able to double the energy output of a comparatively sized non-cogenerative plant while creating less pollution, losing less energy in transference from production to consumption, and bypassing the purchasing fee from an outside utilities plant.

Completed in early 2008, Rowan’s CHP facility is a good example of both the efficiency and financial benefits of such a program. Earlier in 2008, John Imperatore, Director of Facilities and Resource Management, stated that the plant should contribute to energy savings by $1 million a year, but already it is exceeding expectations.

According to Rowan University’s newspaper, Rowan Today, the university has balanced its budget for 2009 and has allocated a $2 million increase for utilities, stating that without the cogeneration plant the total would have been $4 million. Part of the savings comes from increased efficiency, as excess heat from the plant is directed towards supplying heating, air conditioning, and hot water to the entire campus. Finally, the plant can be run on either natural gas or #2 heating oil, allowing the university to choose the most cost effective fuel for its budget.

The CHP facility originally cost $12 million to build, $1 million of which was provided by a rebate from the state board of utilities. This means that if the plant meets its efficiency goals, it will have earned back its construction fee in savings in less than a decade.

In addition to the financial savings, the plant has allowed Rowan to cut its emissions by 8,000 tons per year. The output of the new plant is 4.7 megawatts, up from 1.7 MW, which provides approximately 80 percent of Rowan’s electricity. Generating so much clean power onsite brings the university a reported 30 percent closer to its emissions neutrality goal.

And Rowan isn’t done. The university’s recent decision to buy 25 percent of the remaining electricity from wind power sources is another step forward, as is its goal to have a plan for total climate neutrality in place by 2009.